It’s easy to understand the differing reasons why investing fans; original investors; and other investors with business or commercial links to Rangers International have parted with their cash.

But I find it slightly harder to understand why institutional investors took the gamble to the tune of £17 million. That’s why I was excited to read the explanation from the CEO of Hargreave Hale Ltd – the second biggest investor in Rangers International with 7.6% of the company – but ended up really no further forward in my understanding.

Of course there’s no show without Punch when it comes to Rangers International and I had better add that Charles Green, the company’s CEO, is the biggest shareholder with a 7.79% stake.

However, back to Giles Hargreave who believes he has found the football share in Rangers International that defies the old saying: “The best way to make a small fortune from a football club is to start with a large fortune”.

Giles believes the high likelihood of Rangers moving back up to the top level of Scottish football makes it an undervalued stock that is well worth investing in and he said: “It’s the 12th-best supported club in Europe, and in the UK, Manchester United are a bigger brand, but there aren’t many other brands that are bigger in the UK.

“The club has said it will only stick one-third of its turnover into player wages and with the merchandising potential, if the club does that, it will be significantly profitable and remain so.”

Football club investment can often be risky with financial success linked to on-field success with financial prizes awarded for wining competitions and achieving higher league positions which, in turn, hugely affects marketing potential.

Hargreave thinks the likelihood of Rangers swiftly moving up the league system is high and minimises the risk in this area with promotion looking extremely likely and adds: “The cash-flow, profitability and balance sheets – it ticks all the boxes”. He points to the major advantage that Rangers International is free from debt and Rangers owns its own stadium and training ground and strong fan support suggests revenues – from seat prices at least – won’t drop.

I find the article surprising in many places, not least the statement: “The company is free from debt, having recently emerged from administration”. As even semi-literate clatterers know – the oldco company went straight from administration into liquidation and Rangers International is a brand-new company. It also states: “The newly reformed club launched a share issue on AIM in December”. Well now we know and here was me thinking it was Rangers International 🙂

The article appeared after Scottish League reconstruction was announced and Green decided to fly the coop so I’m unclear how that might affect Mr Hargreave’s opinion especially if a much longer Conference route-march was required to reach the EPL.

But how realistic is it for even the lowly Scottish Premier League – or successor – to restrict players’ wages to one-third of turnover – a very laudable aim of any club management but the expectation of fans and players is an irresistible counter-force IMHO.

I would have expected some mention of the very low ticket prices this season with an estimation how the projected increases, already announced by Rangers International, might affect future sales and revenue in these hard economic times. There is also no real explanation of how ‘merchandising potential’ will be turned into hard cash. It would also have been nice to read an explanation from a savvy investor on how the company assets revaluation, bought for few million but valued at approx £80 million, had impacted on the 3 month accounts presented.

The article also states: ‘Hargreave has previous experience of indirectly investing in a football club as a director of ENIC Group – the firm that bought Tottenham Hotspur Football Club – but he says Rangers is his first direct foray into the sport’.

Actually, I’m surprised the article doesn’t mention Hargreave’s previous experience through ENIC investing in Rangers. Some younger posters might not have heard of sports investment group ENIC which spent £40 million buying 20% of Rangers back in 1997. It’s part of the Bahamas-based private equity Tavistock Group comprising over 200 companies with holdings in energy, resorts, property development, restaurants, manufacturing, sports and other interests.

As well as Rangers. ENIC held stakes in AEK Athens, FC Basel, Slavia Prague, Vicenza and Tottenham Hotspur with its shares hitting a 382.5p peak in early 2000 at the height of the stock market craziness – but by February 2003 the share price plummeted to 25p.

The ENIC 6 monthly results to December 2002 were bleak despite their football club investments doing relatively well in playing terms. The chairman’s report stated: “FC Basel is currently second in the Swiss League and has reached the second group stage of the Champions League.

“Glasgow Rangers is top of the Scottish Premier League and reached the first round of the UEFA Cup, Slavia Prague is top of the Czech domestic league and reached the fourth round of the UEFA Cup, Vicenza Calcio is currently fifth in Serie B in Italy and AEK Athens reached the first group stage of the Champions’ league and is currently third in its domestic league).

“This good performance has not been translated into satisfactory financial results.”

Independent ENIC directors – including Giles Hargreave who served from November 1995 to March 2003 – noted many of the football clubs including Rangers, required extra cash to protect ENIC’s investment but football sector uncertainties made them think it would be inappropriate to further prop-up the clubs using ENIC cash resources.

The ENIC independent directors also decided their shareholders should have the opportunity of a cash exit to allow them to make their own investment decisions regarding the football sector where prospective investment carried a high degree of risk.

Daniel Levy, Tottenham Hotspur chairman joined with Charlie Lewis, the son of the Bahamas-based financier Joe Lewis, to control ENIC – biggest shareholder in Tottenham – and take it private which was achieved in April 2003.

The relationship between ENIC and Rangers goes back to 1996 when ENIC invested £40 million for a 20% stake of Rangers. However, disagreements with Murray over transfer spending led to ENIC’s Howard Stanton resigning from the club’s board of directors in May 1999.

By October 2000 ENIC’s £40 million Ibrox investment had been written down to £15 million or less and because ENIC didn’t have a controlling interest in Rangers, in contrast with most of the other football clubs, ENIC had to go along with Rangers’ free-spending autonomy in the transfer market.

Murray stated of them at the time: “They might not agree with the way we’ve done it, but I’ve been at Rangers 12 years and we’ve won 11 championships and 20 trophies. Also, our turnover’s reached £51 million from £6 million. So I must be doing something right.”

ENIC then announced plans to sell their Rangers stake in February 2001 but failed to find a buyer and in August 2004 the 20% ENIC stake was bought-out for £8.7m by Murray International Holdings Limited which saw the departure of ENIC Director and Tottenham chair Daniel Levy from the Rangers Board.

Interestingly, if the expected £50 million Rangers share flotation went above the 75p per share used for the ENIC buy-out calculation then a further payment would be made.

ENIC were also promised a further payment of up to £5.625m next time Rangers qualified for the Champions League or were invited to join the English Premiership. I think the MSM missed the original story and a stushie broke-out a year later with the then Rangers chief executive Martin Bain having to clarify that David Murray’s holding company, Murray International Holdings Limited, acquired ENIC’s shares and they had an obligation to make additional payments. He added: “The vast majority of any top-up payment is contingent on the club joining the English Premiership.”

So, in a sense, we have turned full circle. I must admit to being disappointed that Mr Hargreave didn’t deal in some depth with his earlier experience of Rangers from an ENIC perspective as I think it would have been helpful in many ways.

But one thing that is crystal clear is that large investors, or a group of them, without a controlling interest in a company can face major difficulties in protecting their investment if the company board decide to take certain decisions. ENIC basically lost over £30 million on its Rangers investment and further large sums on other football clubs which proved how easy it can be to turn a large fortune into a little one by investing in football teams.

I was also disappointed that Mr Hargreave made no comment on the difficulty in determining any dominant investor ‘grouping’ which may exist because of the number of offshore investors and trusts involved with mystery investors.

As always no one should make the mistake of thinking I am offering any advice on investment or shares and if you require this then seek a suitably qualified professional. However, the one piece of advice I would offer is additionally to do your own research because, at the end of the day, it’s your hard-earned cash that’s being invested.

John c , if the side letters issue goes for Rangers what spin will you put on that ? I take you have seen all the evidence ? That you are a legal expert ? That there is no need for a law lord to investigate ? Because you have made your mind up ! In fact why don’t we save money and abolish the legal system and innocent until proven otherwise and just have you and your lynch mob sit and pass judgment , it does not matter if you don’t like the evidence just pass judgement to please yourself , there job done sporting integrity style , a very good evening to you sir.

Carson,
You really need to chill, rangers are dead, The rangers accepted rangers were caught red handed cheating, that’s why they agree to accept all future sanctions in return for an associate membership.
If they were not guilty then The rangers would have refused No ?

Oh and the SPL inquiry is not under the jurisdiction of the legal system, so it’s safe for now 😮

what a massive step to end social exclusion of kids in football well done to thistle for leading the way to encourage all young fans to enter the sport as spectators and it gives them a sence of belonging come on green and lawwell lets see you do the same dont forget glasgow is in the grip of hard economic times and cash for kids is spare with mums juggleing bills this is the best thing to happen to date in football in glasgow since a can remember

John c , I am so laid back I’m horizontal man ! It’s you that need to chill and accept you wanted Rangers dead but they survive , Rangers were not found guilty two judges found in their favour FACT , one tax expert against , in a game if you win 2:1 do you lose ? Rangers accepted illegal sections because the sfa blackmailed them or no licence FACT , they even had to sign over tv rights so the other “big” clubs could get a tv deal FACT , your continued obsession and unhealthy interest in Rangers contradicts you point they are dead , why so much interest/obsession with a dead club ? UEFA have rated their co efficient for the last , including this years seasons , the eca have stated same club , the sfl congratulated them on 140 years , try not to let your bitterness get in the way of facts , and by the way you did not answer my question from a previous post , the facts are we are alive and kicking all the illegal sanctions, hatred and attempts to keep us down will only make us stronger .

Carson,
Haha ha ha FACT
Sure the duff&phelps report said company and club in liquidation FACT
Rangers were second in league last season but never played in Europe FACT
Two clubs existed last summer, rangers held an SPL share and sevco Scotland got a conditional license, at the same time FACT

It is common practice in legal documents to define the meaning of words as they are used within that document. All the wording of the D&P document does is confirm that where the words “club” and “company” appear within that document, they are to be given the meaning “The Rangers Football Club PLC.” The D&P document tells us nothing more than that.

Rangers didn’t play in Europe because the UEFA rules prevent a club which has changed its corporate structure from doing so for three years. The move from the oldco to the newco was a change in the club’s corporate structure. Again RFC not playing in Europe this year tells us nothing at all about whether the club survived the liquidation of the company.

I can’t in all honesty recall whether it’s true that the oldco held the SPL share at the point the newco obtained conditional membership and played Brechin, but if it is true, then it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. The SPL share relates to membership of the SPL. There are plenty of clubs which aren’t members of the SPL, and so the holding of the SPL share is irrelevant to whether the newco acquired the club.

As against what you are saying, we have confirmation from the SFL, the SFA, and the ECA that Rangers then is indeed Rangers now. In fact as far as I’m aware no football authority suggests otherwise.

We also have comments from 3 Senators of the College of Justice (1 retired, admittedly) in 3 separate cases involving Rangers acknowledging in principle the distinction between club and company.

Finally, we have a long list of clubs elsewhere who have gone through exactly the same process as Rangers and are regarded by the football authorities as the same club.

Frankly, the case you make is borderline unstateable.

You are keen on using the phrase “cognitive dissonance.” Can I suggest you look up another concept known to psychology – “The Dunning-Kruger effect.”

duplesis – thanks for reply, but not old wimbledon won cup and held it for a few years even thought they moved, they did win it after all. But FA decided later that Newco wimbledon were real owners of a cup they never won….

So its different from rangers, but includes the oldco, newco and transfer of titles and trophies.

I think real conclusion is bodies are free to interpret or misinterpret rules and regs and identity at different times, but these days clubs (like rangers) will go legal route to try to unravel issues – but this a minefield either way.

If rangers really not dead, then follows spl (top league of sfa) punishments could be severe, and so could UEFA if they then follow.

Not paying debts is bad enough, avoiding debts or cheating (ebts) would be far worse ? No ?

i wasn’t aware that the FA decided that AFC Wimbledon were the true “owners” of the honour. Very interesting if correct, since it amounts to a decision by the FA that its the supporters and the community which has final say in what constitutes their club.

That said, whilst the AFC Wimbledon honours web page does list all of Wimbledon’s honours, including the FA Cup, it prefaces doing so with the statement:

“The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, ‘our’ club, in our community.”

and doesn’t make reference to any FA decision on that point. If there’s a link to the FA decision on this point, I’d be very interested to read how they came to their conclusion.

In my posts on this issue I’ve always conceded that if we are the same club, it logically follows that we must accept the footballing punishments related to conduct at the time the club was operated by the old company. Ultimately LNS’s judgement put forward a mechanism under the SPL rules by which these punishments might transfer to the new company.

@mr nice try wiki mk dons,afc wimbledon and wimbledon fc ( the original club and the one that won the fa cup in q and who according to wiki now own the relica trophy etc ) no mention of any relevant FA involvement that I can see.

“It is common practice in legal documents to define the meaning of words as they are used within that document. All the wording of the D&P document does is confirm that where the words “club” and “company” appear within that document, they are to be given the meaning “The Rangers Football Club PLC.” The D&P document tells us nothing more than that.”
Agreed that legal docs do this – but stating that the meanings in such docs stretch no further than the confines of the document, and that each new instance is to be viewed afresh, would deny the existence of case law. The D&P doc is very informative and reinforces numerous other examples to confirm that in football rules, and company law, the company and the club are one and the same – indeed they necessarily must be in a real legal sense. I buy the idea of some form of entity that is the clubFC – but in the real world of law, rules, contracts etc., that can’t be held as the football club.

“Rangers didn’t play in Europe because the UEFA rules prevent a club which has changed its corporate structure from doing so for three years.”
Club or company? … well actually they are necessarily one and the same for rules to be applied. Administration/liquidation is most defininety a change in ‘its corporate structure’. I picture in my minds eye John Cleese holding up a cage with a horizontal parrot within, and being told that the parrot has changed its corporate structure. Indeed.

“I can’t in all honesty recall whether it’s true that the oldco held the SPL share at the point the newco obtained conditional membership and played Brechin, but if it is true, then it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.”
Its relevant because Oldco can be shown as being Rangers that finished second in the SPL in the 2011/12 season. If another team considered as being Rangers played at Brechin City in the 1st round of the Scottish Challenge Cup whilst the former were still in existence, both cannot be Rangers as the club that finished second in the SPL the previous season is ineligible for the Scottish Challenge Cup under its rules.

“As against what you are saying, we have confirmation from the SFL, the SFA, and the ECA that Rangers then is indeed Rangers now.”
Each may have expressed opinion that the same clubFC continues, but in each example of the application of the rules (potentially with the exception of the 5 way agreement) Rangers are a new club.

“We also have comments from 3 Senators of the College of Justice (1 retired, admittedly) in 3 separate cases involving Rangers acknowledging in principle the distinction between club and company.”
I am left to guess at these instances without further info, but I presume one of them is the LNS opinion in setting his ‘ground rules’ to the SPLIC? Well, he also states that the RangersFC is an entity without legal personality. But then again maybe the three examples you mention aren’t applicable since, “It is common practice in legal documents to define the meaning of words as they are used within that document.”

“Finally, we have a long list of clubs elsewhere who have gone through exactly the same process as Rangers and are regarded by the football authorities as the same club.”
Being regarded as something, and actually being something in reality are not the same thing – remember when CW was regarded as a billionaire? Remember when Oldco were regarded as champions in waiting c.Oct 2011 instead of the financial basketcase they were?

(1)“Agreed that legal docs do this – but stating that the meanings in such docs stretch no further than the confines of the document, and that each new instance is to be viewed afresh, would deny the existence of case law.”

I’m afraid that’s just incorrect – a word subject to a definition in a document provides no authority for the meaning of that word in another context, and has no relevance at all in case law (unless that case law refers to exactly the same document.) That even extends to the same word used in different statutes – let alone the same word used in different documents.

(2)” Club or company? … well actually they are necessarily one and the same for rules to be applied.”

Again, not so. The UEFA rules referred to simply state that where there has been a change in corporate structure there is deemed to be a break in the membership of the club with that club’s national association. The rule isn’t about the continuation (or otherwise) of the club. Rather it’s really a form of punishment or deterrent against clubs undergoing the process we did.

(3) “Its relevant because Oldco can be shown as being Rangers that finished second in the SPL in the 2011/12 season. If another team considered as being Rangers played at Brechin City in the 1st round of the Scottish Challenge Cup whilst the former were still in existence, both cannot be Rangers as the club that finished second in the SPL the previous season is ineligible for the Scottish Challenge Cup under its rules.”

Well of course, that’s a different argument to the one presented by John C, which was simply that the fact the oldco held the SPL share at the point of the Brechin game was in some way relevant to the continuation (or otherwise) of the club (which is nonsense.)

It’s noteworthy that in this argument, you are relying on the footballing authorities interpreting their own rules correctly, but in your next argument you suggest they do not. On the face of it where the way a body applies the rules in a way which supports your argument, you take it to be correct, but where it does not, you suggest the body isn’t applying the rules properly…

The challenge cup rules set out the format for that competition, nothing else. They don’t purport to tell us anything about the nature of clubs or their relationship to the companies which run them.

It is just a nonsense to try to “reverse engineer” the status of RFC from rules which don’t exist for that purpose –particularly where the body which actually runs the competition has already confirmed that the club continues.

(As it happens, I suspect that under the 5 way agreement provision was made for which round the club would enter the competition, although I mention that in passing only)

(4) “Each may have expressed opinion that the same clubFC continues, but in each example of the application of the rules (potentially with the exception of the 5 way agreement) Rangers are a new club.”

In each example of the application of which rules? I suspect you are again falling into the trap of “forcing a round peg into a square hole” and using rules which exist for one purpose for something entirely different. None of these organisations have rules which define the end of a club.
If you specify which rules you are referring to however, I’ll respond.

(5)” I am left to guess at these instances without further info, but I presume one of them is the LNS opinion in setting his ‘ground rules’ to the SPLIC? Well, he also states that the RangersFC is an entity without legal personality.”

yes, one of them is the LNS opinion. Now admittedly, LNS is looking at the SPL rules when he says this, but he refers to general legal concepts as he does so.

And yes, he states the club as an entity without personality – which he infers is analogous to an undertaking in general law, and that’s exactly what those of us arguing for continuation of the club have been saying all along.

The club is the “business” or the “undertaking” carried out by the company. Just like businesses and undertakings in every other walk of life, it can be transferred between corporate bodies. Businesses and undertakings do not have a legal personality. They are things which legal (or natural) persons run.

The reference to the club being an entity without personality in my view also refers to another aspect of the general law. Pre-incorporation, clubs have no legal personality, and operate through the agency of their members (who do have legal personality, since they are natural persons.) LNS is saying that post-incorporation, clubs still have no legal personality, but operate through the agency of the company (which does have legal personality.)

The other 2 cases are the Ticketus case and the Judicial review case. Lord Hodge and Lord Glennie both identify the distinction between club and company and both state that the company operates the club. Glennie in fact went so far as to say that the PLC “presently” operated Rangers Football Club, and that the club – rather than the company – was the SFA member (Ironically with regard to your comments at point (1) above, he defines the word “Rangers” in his judgement as being the club rather than the company…)

(6) “Being regarded as something, and actually being something in reality are not the same thing – remember when CW was regarded as a billionaire? Remember when Oldco were regarded as champions in waiting c.Oct 2011 instead of the financial basketcase they were?”

You’re just getting a bit desperate here, I think. Neither example pertains to the point I made.

What will ultimately determine whether the club currently playing in the 3rd Division is the same as the one which played in the SPL is how the footballing authorities treat the issue. You chaps constantly bang on about not wanting RFC to be treated as a special case by the football authorities – so surely we should be treated and regarded in the same way as the other clubs that have gone through this process.

interesting stuff dupe two opinions both thinking they are right but neither knowing for sure. similar to mure,rae and poon. lord glennies decision is an interesting read partic page 14 I think from memory again as the sfa pointed out two minds interpreting differently. i have a view that if lord glennie had agreed with the sfa’s semantic interpretation things could have turned out so differently for your club.
i dont come from either side of the wos divide but am ashamed that in scotland one of its biggest clubs with a 140 year history and a £50m+ annual turnover has got itself in this position. u r of the view that its same club etc if cg was consistent in that view that would represent progress .

Firstly, Ive put my latest comments in bold but just for convenience/ease of read, not significance.
(1)“Agreed that legal docs do this – but stating that the meanings in such docs stretch no further than the confines of the document, and that each new instance is to be viewed afresh, would deny the existence of case law.”
I’m afraid that’s just incorrect – a word subject to a definition in a document provides no authority for the meaning of that word in another context, and has no relevance at all in case law (unless that case law refers to exactly the same document.) That even extends to the same word used in different statutes – let alone the same word used in different documents. So how does this principle apply to the opinions of the 3 esteemed judges you mention? Do they set out definitions? Do they apply outwith their context as you mention in (5) below. IMO you are somewhat duplicitous here, Duplesis, since its you who criticise my comments for selective use of examples, but its you who do this rather than I. Either definitions in legal docs can be used to make one’s case or they can’t. Pick one and stick with it. I say they can. It seems you argue context when it suits you, and general principles of law when it suits you. There is no overarching narrative.
The narrative I argue is that definitions in the rules of the administrative bodies, the governing bodies/national association set out what is a ‘club’ in reality – it’s the same as the Clubco since it needs to have a legal personality.
(2)” Club or company? … well actually they are necessarily one and the same for rules to be applied.”
Again, not so. The UEFA rules referred to simply state that where there has been a change in corporate structure there is deemed to be a break in the membership of the club with that club’s national association. The rule isn’t about the continuation (or otherwise) of the club. Rather it’s really a form of punishment or deterrent against clubs undergoing the process we did.Not ‘not so’. So. They state this in their definitions – in the same documents in case you might argue context … I would be interested in examples of these changes in corporate structure without reference to Insolvency, Administration or Liquidation.
(3) “Its relevant because Oldco can be shown as being Rangers that finished second in the SPL in the 2011/12 season. If another team considered as being Rangers played at Brechin City in the 1st round of the Scottish Challenge Cup whilst the former were still in existence, both cannot be Rangers as the club that finished second in the SPL the previous season is ineligible for the Scottish Challenge Cup under its rules.”
Well of course, that’s a different argument to the one presented by John C, which was simply that the fact the oldco held the SPL share at the point of the Brechin game was in some way relevant to the continuation (or otherwise) of the club (which is nonsense.) The point remains that two Clubcos existed separately at the same time for a short period. Despite this, you claim these are the same. This seems to me to be John C’s thrust. Logically, they cannot be the same. (said Mr Spock ?!  )
It’s noteworthy that in this argument, you are relying on the footballing authorities interpreting their own rules correctly, but in your next argument you suggest they do not. On the face of it where the way a body applies the rules in a way which supports your argument, you take it to be correct, but where it does not, you suggest the body isn’t applying the rules properly… The 5 way agreement has not been published, and isn’t known so your guess is as good as mine. Where the interpretation of the rules is known, it appears they treat the Club as a new Club, since their rules must be applied to the Clubco, the legal entity.
The challenge cup rules set out the format for that competition, nothing else. They don’t purport to tell us anything about the nature of clubs or their relationship to the companies which run them. Who’s picking and choosing now? The administrators of the game were not at liberty to simply issue a statement or express an opinion, but instead they had to act according to their own rules. The appearance of Rangers in the Challenge Cup and subsequent appearance in early rounds of the Scottish Cup show that they are a new club under these rules.
It is just a nonsense to try to “reverse engineer” the status of RFC from rules which don’t exist for that purpose –particularly where the body which actually runs the competition has already confirmed that the club continues.
(As it happens, I suspect that under the 5 way agreement provision was made for which round the club would enter the competition, although I mention that in passing only)Its not nonsense. Its sense.
Its entirely reasonable to draw a conclusion on how a governing body or administrative body has decided the status of a competitor football club based on how a Clubco has been treated by the rules. An opinion or statement can say that the clubFC continues, since their stated and documented rules don’t refer to the clubFC, but instead refer to the Clubco. The administrators as individuals can have views, opinions, and biases just the same as you, me or anyone – but the true test comes when they must act in the capacity of their appointed professional role, and apply their own rules.
(4) “Each may have expressed opinion that the same clubFC continues, but in each example of the application of the rules (potentially with the exception of the 5 way agreement) Rangers are a new club.”
In each example of the application of which rules? I suspect you are again falling into the trap of “forcing a round peg into a square hole” and using rules which exist for one purpose for something entirely different. None of these organisations have rules which define the end of a club.
If you specify which rules you are referring to however, I’ll respond. The rules of the SFA (and the two league bodies), UEFA, FIFA that are in reference to clubs under association football necessarily require the ‘club’ to be a legal entity. In the interests of saving time, it would be quicker for you to come up with examples where one of these rules is made in reference to the clubFC (not a legal entity). It will be a far shorter list.
(5)” I am left to guess at these instances without further info, but I presume one of them is the LNS opinion in setting his ‘ground rules’ to the SPLIC? Well, he also states that the RangersFC is an entity without legal personality.”
yes, one of them is the LNS opinion. Now admittedly, LNS is looking at the SPL rules when he says this, but he refers to general legal concepts as he does so. But I’m sure one of us raised the issue of context – oh that’s right, it was you. 
And yes, he states the club as an entity without personality – which he infers is analogous to an undertaking in general law, and that’s exactly what those of us arguing for continuation of the club have been saying all along.
The club is the “business” or the “undertaking” carried out by the company. Just like businesses and undertakings in every other walk of life, it can be transferred between corporate bodies. Businesses and undertakings do not have a legal personality. They are things which legal (or natural) persons run.
The reference to the club being an entity without personality in my view also refers to another aspect of the general law. Pre-incorporation, clubs have no legal personality, and operate through the agency of their members (who do have legal personality, since they are natural persons.) LNS is saying that post-incorporation, clubs still have no legal personality, but operate through the agency of the company (which does have legal personality.)
The other 2 cases are the Ticketus case and the Judicial review case. Lord Hodge and Lord Glennie both identify the distinction between club and company and both state that the company operates the club. Glennie in fact went so far as to say that the PLC “presently” operated Rangers Football Club, and that the club – rather than the company – was the SFA member (Ironically with regard to your comments at point (1) above, he defines the word “Rangers” in his judgement as being the club rather than the company…)I’m not familiar with the Ticketus case and the judicial review case – can you provide links to the docs?
It seems that (from your wording above) three entities are referred to in three docs – Rangers Football Club, Rangers and Rangers FC – all as the clubFC (the entity with no legal personality). Can an entity that has no legal personality be a member of anything? As uncomfortable as I am with disagreeing with Lord Glennie, I do nevertheless.
I would argue that despite the lack of legal personality, it should be definable as comprising a number of specified assets – this is in order for it to be treated differently to simply that, a group of assets. Its currently reasonable to argue that what has continued is simply a number of assets that allow a similar looking business to undertake similar activities in a similar way in a similar setting.
[as an aside re the LNS opinion in the SPLIC ground rules – I wonder if it is influenced by what was agreed in the as yet unpublished 5 way agreement.]
(6) “Being regarded as something, and actually being something in reality are not the same thing – remember when CW was regarded as a billionaire? Remember when Oldco were regarded as champions in waiting c.Oct 2011 instead of the financial basketcase they were?”
You’re just getting a bit desperate here, I think. Neither example pertains to the point I made. Me no desperado! Again, being regarded as something, and actually being something in reality are not the same thing. That’s not a point of law or football rules – its common sense.
What will ultimately determine whether the club currently playing in the 3rd Division is the same as the one which played in the SPL is how the footballing authorities treat the issue. You chaps constantly bang on about not wanting RFC to be treated as a special case by the football authorities – so surely we should be treated and regarded in the same way as the other clubs that have gone through this process.I’m sure you are aware of a principle in debate where you have to have a picture of what ‘the other side of the argument winning’ looks like? If you would not accept that the current Rangers are new under any circumstances – then you’re not really debating points are you? Producing dogma is a better description. But as you should know by now, I have a healthy and good natured respect for your opinions on here so I’m sure you would make some attempt at setting out what circumstance or set of evidence would persuade you?
For my part … and Ive set this out before … what would change my mind would be a legal test where one side specifically claims it is the same club and the other side not. I guess if one of the shareholders/creditors (who, remember, owned a bit of/were owed money by the Clubco at the time – with no further distinction required) of Oldco chased the current Rangers for losses, that might do it. That would involve a judgement on precisely these contested grounds. The ‘the other side of the argument winning’ and my losing would be an award of losses by the Judge against the current Rangers since they would thus be deemed as the same club in reality.
As an additional point… It seems to me that football clubs in Scotland range from the smallest and most basic sports club at the ‘grassroots’ level, which is maybe a social club too, with a club constitution, club members, etc., up to the top of the national league (SPL as is) with clubs constituted as companies (Clubcos). Due to the commercial imperatives at the higher levels, they cannot remain as unincorporated members clubs. Possibly the reason Rangers are amidst a debate on their status is that they are neither at one end of the scale nor the other, but find themselves in the middle.

I’ll try to stick to the numbering in my earlier post, but for point (1) I’ll bring in point (5) to respond to the point you make.

(1)& (5) I would repeat that the definitions of words given in a document are not binding or even relevant in interpreting the same words in another context.

Moreover, there is no sense at all in which D&P were trying to set out a legal opinion that club and company were the same thing in their reports to creditors. All they were doing was confirming that those words would be used interchangeably in their report, and would should both be taken to mean the oldco.

If what Lord Glennie and Lord Hodge had been doing when they mentioned the club / company distinction in their opinions was interpreting the meaning of those words in the context of a particular document, then I would completely agree with you – their comments wouldn’t have relevance beyond the document they were referring to.

They weren’t doing that though. Both Judges made the comments in the context of setting out the background and the nature of the parties to the case.

LNS’s position is slightly different, in that he was interpreting the meaning of “club” in the context of the SPL rules. I was trying to be upfront about that when I pointed out LNS was looking at the SPL rules in his opinion, and I do acknowledge that LNS’s views have to be taken in that context.

As I said in my earlier post though, he does also touch on areas of general law, such as the analogy with “an undertaking ,“ and the question of legal personality. I find these comments to be the most interesting and helpful in many ways.

In particular his approach to defining the club as an entity which is without legal personality, but which is recognisable as an entity, and is capable of transfer between owners is fascinating (I’m quoting Spock too…) and a really very clever analysis of what a club is after it ceases to be an unincorporated association.

In my original post, I suggested that these 3 judges had acknowledged the club/company distinction “in principle.” I’m not seeking to show that they’ve determined the issue absolutely. Neither Glennie nor Hodge needed to address this issue to reach the decision they made, so their comments are in passing. The relevance for me though is that – far from the legal absurdity that many “experts” on here and other sites suggest that the idea of the club / company distinction is – these 3 judges are actually pretty comfortable with the idea.

(2)The rule I was referring to was Article 12 of the UEFA club licensing rules.

12.1 says that an applicant must be a football club, which it defines as a “legal entity” fully responsible for a football team (I don’t believe “legal entity” is given any further definition in the UEFA rules, but I could be wrong – I think it would be wrong to assume that it means the entity must have legal personality in the absence of something which says that, however. Would UEFA exclude a club which operated as an unincorporated association from competition?)

The football club must either be, or have a contractual relationship to, a registered member of a UEFA member association.

12.2 provides that the membership or contractual relationship must have lasted for 3 years for the football club to be eligible. It is also confirmed that any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure to the detriment of the integrity of the competition is deemed to be an interruption of the membership or contractual relationship.

When 12.2 does is provide that a change in company structure is deemed to be a break in a club’s membership with the national association – and that’s all. 12.2 could have said that a change in the club’s company structure is deemed to be a change of club, but it did not.

Getting back to my original post – this rule isn’t about when a club comes to an end. It’s about treating certain acts as breaking the continuity of a club’s membership with its governing authority.

(3)It is true that 2 companies existed at the same time, and (if John C is right), the oldco held the SPL share at the time RFC played Brechin. But John C’s argument equates the SPL share with “club,” and that obviously can’t be the case since there are plenty of clubs which don’t have an SPL share. Everytime a club is relegated from the SPL, it loses its SPL share. As has been pointed out on here previously, it couldn’t sensibly be suggested that that everytime a club is relegated from the SPL, it ceases to be a club.

That must mean that club is not defined by SPL share, and so the fact the oldco retained the SPL share tells us nothing about what or where the club was at that point.

Turning to your own argument on this issue, what you said originally was:

“Its relevant because Oldco can be shown as being Rangers that finished second in the SPL in the 2011/12 season. If another team considered as being Rangers played at Brechin City in the 1st round of the Scottish Challenge Cup whilst the former were still in existence, both cannot be Rangers as the club that finished second in the SPL the previous season is ineligible for the Scottish Challenge Cup under its rules.”

As I read that, you are adopting John C’s argument that because oldco still held the SPL share, the club which played Brechin must be a different club. For the reasons given above, that seems to me to be incorrect.

You then go on to say that the Challenge Cup rules provide that the team which finished 2nd in the SPL is ineligible for the challenge Cup, and infer that means the club which played Brechin can’t be the club which finished 2nd in the SPL.

I’d have to say that I hadn’t read the Challenge Cup rules in detail before I responded last time, but I have now. They don’t exclude the RFC which participated in the SPL from participating in the Challenge Cup.

Rule 1 says: “The Competition shall be contested by the clubs in the First, Second and Third Divisions in the current season”

Accordingly, provided the club is in the SFL in a given season, it is eligible for the Challenge Cup, and so I don’t think your point stands.

I would in any event maintain that – had your understanding of the rules been correct – RFC’s involvement in the cup doesn’t help us with the newclub / oldclub argument. The rules aren’t about defining the continuity of a club, they are about organising a competition.

Moreover, it is a jump to get from “the rules say a club which finished 2nd in the SPL is ineligible, and yet RFC played in the cup” to “therefore the SFL regard the RFC which played the tie as not the RFC which was in the SPL last season.” That’s because there are alternative explanations, such as the rules were applied incorrectly, or the parties agreed in the 5 way agreement that RFC would play the tie notwithstanding what the rules say, and we’d have to eliminate those first, given the SFL have expressly recognised the club as continuing.

I think the rules would also provide that – if RFC were an entirely new club – they wouldn’t have been eligible to play in the SFL this season at all. Following the logic of your argument, it would follow that as RFC are playing in the SFL, they are not a new club.

(4) As I mentioned above, I think it’s wrong to equate “legal entity” with “legal personality.”Beyond that, I’ve been typing this for about 2 hours now, and I’m not going to go through all of the rules for the various organisations tonight. As before though, I’d look at any specific rules you point me to.

(6)I would say that, in this case, being regarded as something actually pretty much is in practice the same as being that thing. As I’ve said previously, ultimately the answer on RFC’s continuity is going to be dependent on how the footballing authorities regard the club. If they treat the club as continuing (which they appear to) then that is what it is. No other club or individual would have right or title to challenge that position, so unless we challenge it, there will never be any authoritative statement to contradict it.

If the record books in 20 years time show an unbroken line of honours dating back 160 years (and I think they will), then that is what we will have, because ultimately we aren’t dealing with an objective real world “thing,” we are dealing with something more abstract.

Finally, you ask what would persuade me I am wrong.

I think the scenario you set out where there are court proceedings and the determination of those proceedings necessitated the Court coming to a view on this issue is a fair shout. If a Court ruled that the club died when the oldco liquidated then I would accept that (although I’m honest enough to say that I’d probably adopt the AFC Wimbledon / Airdrie United approach of seeing the new club as at least a “spiritual successor.”)

As I say though, I doubt we’ll ever get to the stage where there is a clear determination one way or another in Court. I believe there is plenty more litigation to come, but I think it’s unlikely that this central issue will be directly engaged.

To avoid the cries of ‘get a room’ or suchlike, this is short.
I see the current Rangers as the spiritual continuation of the Rangers way or ethos or club culture, that has inherited the claim to be Rangers. In the way that a maybe a child inherits that of the parent, and although they aren’t the same, the family continues. I know many who hold that it is not the same club, but are happy with this type of idea.
The publication of the 5 way agreement is crucial to the openness needed to move on.

Is everyone forgetting the fact that Rangers got to vote on the new Rangers potentially entering the SPL? Two separate clubs. The Lord Nimmo-Smith statement also states,”The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a Club on 14 June 2012, and argues that the relevant date is 3 August 2012″.
The football authorities don’t want to lose potentially tens of thousands of customers from the game by stating the fact that The Rangers are a new club with no history or honours. Who would follow follow a new club with no honours or history? Not many,i suspect. This is why they continue to spread the myth, to keep customers & their own salaries intact. Quite obvious to me.

thats not a change in corporate structure, just a change in the shareholding. Whyte’s £1 got him 85,000 odd shares in the company – a controlling interest. The company concerned stayed the same though, so the club’s corporate structure was not altered.

Off topic however like many other fans i’m just genuinely interested to see how things pan out as Chuckles plays his game. Stadium name reportedly to be sold for a mere 2.5m, – but why? 2.5m is nothing for a club that is “awash with cash” as he has told us repeatedly – so why risk the undoubted ire of the fans? If you have 10-15m sitting in the bank in cash and nothing to spend it on why bother selling off the naming rights for peanuts? Is this all in an attempt to keep the share price propped up until the main players sell out?

Carson,
Your problem is you are deluding yourself that it’s the same football club, it’s not, and deep down you know it’s not, that cognitive dissonance will have an impact on your mental health, be careful.

With regards to sevco objections to the proposed 12-12-18 format, it would not matter what format was proposed, they would object only to keep their faces in the red tops, they are now proposing 14-14-14 as if no other person had ever thought of it.

Who really cares if the league is reconstructed ? you cannot polish shit ! Same old crap week in week out , falling attendances ( or maybe they were buying school uniforms OR dressed up as seats ) Rangers will be fine as for the rest ? If they were doing so well why reconstruction ? SEMPER PARATUS.

Carson,
I know the masons are not a Protestant society they are a pagan society, in Scotland and the UK they usurp Protestant churches, you cannot be a Christian and a mason and that goes for the Vatican too.
However in the UK secret societies and corruption go hand in glove, as I said Scotland’s secret shame is being exposed and you trying stupid misdirection means nothing. It may fool your acolytes but the Scottish problem is what Scottish people are looking at.
Every sat of fans your new club have faced have asked you who you are ?
They represent everyone else who does not support your new club, they are the PEOPLE and you are finding that out the hard way.
The only people who believe you are the same club are fools and hypocrites, I suppose emotions can make fools of us all but the hypocrites are simply manipulating emotional people to try and force control.

Did you know the longest serving Celtic player was an Orangeman Alex McNair 21 years he played for Celtic.
He was out injured for an old firm game and phoned Celtic park before the game, “hammer them Masonic bast…s” he is reported to have said.
Strange days eh

Yes. Many. The past two Masters of my Lodge [Houstoun St Johnstone, Lodge 242 ] are Roman Catholics. We also have many others of that faith in our Lodge.
What some of you don’t seem to realise is that belief in a Supreme Being is what is required for membership of a Freemasonic Lodge.
I’ve sat beside R.C.’s, Jews, Muslims and other religions inside a Lodge.

The west of Scotland and in the minds of illiterate bigots are the only places Freemasonry seems to be a problem.

@JohnC
Suggest if you dont know anything about a particular subject you keep quiet.
Pagan – my feckin arse.
It is entirely opposite and requires belief in God or whatever you want to call him.
As for the Vatican it has probably the most extensive record of Freemasonry anywhere in the world and of course until very recently was by association the guiding light of the black lodge.
Roman Catholics are welcomed by Freemasonry and I know many who have joined and several who have held the post of Right Worshipful Master of their lodges.
The entire story ( as that what it is ) is based on events in the old testament and I can assure you these are not secret.
It has nothing to do with any of the other organisations who encourage religious separation or bigotry and is certainly not a problem in Scotland.
On the contrary the organisation is known for it’s charitable works for all parts of society.

We know that Green did not pay the IPO price for his shares, how many of the other major investors did ?

Why did he not mention the previous history of Enic and Rangers. He is surely not going to be suckered twice.

Given everything goes right for Rangers they are still unlikely to make money and pay dividends so I just don get the incentive for the institutions to invest. In football success comes at a big financial cost.

Maybe we are looking at them as investors looking for a return on their investment via dividend income and growth in share price.

They may have a different model. If they were to purchase the assets and lease them back at a high value they would create an income stream that could be sold on to other institutions.

I have been mulling over the Hargreave failure to look at Enic and its football investments in any detail and wonder if it was because of the strategy employed.

Enic IMHO was in for the long term and not only invested in a number of clubs but also in different countries. As time passed and circumstances changed they concentrated on Tottenham. Interestingly part of the reason given for the sale of its Rangers shares was to fund its interest in Tottenham and, if my memory serves me correcty, it’s an indicator of how they possibly viewed the future prospects of both teams and their leagues.

I assume the dilution of the Enic stake in Rangers because of the proposed new share offer was also a factor.

So perhaps Hargreave thinks a more focussed investment and possibly for the shorter term might be the way to go. But I am still left a little puzzled as even non-market experts are aware of how well Celtic shares have been doing recently and I’m surprised that this didn’t rate a mention in his Rangers article.

Perhaps he hasn’t bought any Celtic shares and, without giving advice, perhaps he should reconsider. However, Celtic plays the long game, if not the long ball, and perhaps that difference in style to Rangers might rule them out as one to watch for Mr Hargreave 🙂

@ecojon
When you say Celtic shares have done well recently, yes you have a point, but you need to look back a wee bit further than the last year to appreciate that the shares are only now returning to the levels they enjoyed five years ago.
Given the fairly high drop it is hardly surprising Celtic share sales were limited as people would hold in the hope the value would return to these levels and for sentimental reasons.
Also given the very limited trade in Celtic shares it is difficult to see how they will go much higher than the level to which they have returned as there is no great demand in the market driving the price up.
The recovery in price is obviously due to their success in the CL this season and is cushioned by the fact that the SPL has been gifted to them for the next few years.
The Balance Sheet has strengthened considerably this year on the back of this.
Whilst this could reasonably be considered sustainable in the short term unless they can improve again on revenue next year and the year after I can see no organic reason for the shares to continue to increase at the rate of the last three months which has been exceptional.
What happens next year if they do not make the final sixteen of the CL?
I note Eric Riley recently purchased some more shares at the discounted rate and he will certainly make a gain albeit in the low tens of percentages but Joe Punter buying now would struggle to make a return as the shares have probably just about peaked.
And the shares still do not pay a dividend so it is difficult to envisage anyone other than existing shareholders trying to strengthen their holdings or Joe Punter buying the single share for the wall.
If you have shares and need the money sell sell sell.
Other than that hold but beware the value of your investment can go down ( again ) as well as up.

Not a lot I would disagree with but remember my main point was that I would have expected a mention by Hargreave in his blurb. Obviously there aren’t a lot of Celtic shares traded and I doubt if any fans would sell to take a profit.

I don’t know what you thought of an earlier comment I made that it could be a good idea for Rangers shareholders to sell say 700 of the 714 shares they got for £500 and buy-in later when the price drops which would increase the overall % held by the support. This is obviously an emotional issue rather than a calculated investment one.

I actually have no problem in giving credit where it’s due and some of the Celtic rise I’m sure also came from the Rangers share price increase.
At the very low volume of Rangers sales then a handful of shares being sold can affect the price. There appears to be a downward shift which if it continues might, at some point, shake-out some bigger investors who aren’t locked in.

We’ll see what happens especially when the 6 month lockdown comes off.

Btw on the question of dividend Celtic fans did have a choice in terms of the class of shares originally purchased. Dividends can be a thorny subject for football fans and a dividend, if declared, could be paid on Rangers shares.

That could be an interesting issue for the future especially if the share price falls with investors pressing one way and fans the other – in the main. I’ll need to check but somewhere in my memory a wee voice seems to remember Green saying there wouldn’t be dividends and I also seem to remember him saying that NEDS shouldn’t hold shares.

I could be wrong but I’ll check it when I get a minute unless you know the answer 🙂

The CFC rise is unrelated to RIPLC ( oops…..) the simple fact is that under GS and then TM spending was high and wage bills higher so debt ratio measured against success was low. The current situation has reversed where wage bills are better controlled and the purchase of bargain players and sale of improved has redressed the balance in addition to the positive cash balance at this time. The financial management is better controlled and the marketing and rights are being better managed as well. CFC have the additional benefit of historic trading position and within the club structure there is now most definately stability in business as well as team performance along with a future that is pretty well marked out for the next 5 years. The reason CFC have been seeking to secure long term contracts with key and emerging players is not just all about securing their services. It provides business stability going forward as well.

Coupled with traditionally low sharebuying/trading in football clubs, generally the trade price is probably about right for CFC and IMHO higher by around 30% or more for RIPLC. If you take a snap shot now and then again in 18 months I am pretty sure you will see a correcting of the market price for RIPLC. Thats not to say that the shares in RIPLC will be traded any more than or less than any other club but their business and financial security is far from determined or stable and this alone will have an impact on how next gen investors, large or small, will view the investment.

Seriously it is not of any effect other than internally, the group will determine its own future where ever that lies and the individuals that brought this around will have benefited from the large salaries and bonuses along with a little trading profit given that the key individuals to all intents and purposes did not stretch their pockets in obtaining the shares so 1,000,000 shares at 1p is still a score to them.

@ecojon
Sorry I have lost track of whether Rangers will pay a dividend or not will need to re-read propsectus.
The price for Rangers today is 88.5 down from 90.0 which seems to me to reflect the bedding in stage and if it settles here then investors have done well.
Whether that prompts institutional selling after the lock in period expires who knows but that would not affect Rangers cash position in anyway.
The Celtic price has peaked at just over 60.0 and I dont see it moving much further unless exceptional new revenue streams are found.
Markets are usually pretty well up with events and the next results are someway off so If I was Hargreaves I would not be considering buying Celtic shares until there was evidence to suggest the potential for growth was still apparent.
One of the main drivers in the fall in value of Celtic shares previously was the drop in revenue from £70 odd million to circa £55m.
The other was the pre-tax loss posted last year.
If they can find a way of getting those levels of revenue back along with the reduced wage bill they have now then clearly there is potential for the share price to increase.
Given the success in the CL and the income gained from the run so far they may already have recouped the lost turnover.
At Rangers the potential growth would seem to be more evident albeit not as great as they should be looking forward to higher revenues in the rise up the divisions and for the restructured league and TV deals.
In short then I suspect that Celtic share price today reflects optimism that the levels of turnover previously experienced have returned but that until the annual results verify the improvement in financial performance there will be little or no further upward movement.
At Rangers the share price is still bedding in but is unlikely to slip back too much because of the potential increase in revenue on the way back up.
Whether fans should take their profit now or wait is not something I would be comfortable advising but whatever they do it will not affect the club as the money is now in the bank.

The rich Mick ? I think you will find and history has shown it was a lot closer to home, sadly, and allegedly covered up by working class people who should have known better for fear of getting certain institutions a bad name , surely children come first before institutions ?

I find it incredulous that you guys have spent the last 30 minutes getting cheap shots at each other.
Carson just say you are talking about catholic priests
Mick chill out it wasnt you
Wonka change the record

We are all aware of the seedy pasts of certain individuals and societies and few are totally blameless, whether through the blind eye or gloating on the abuse of children
Please get back to the subjects we come on to this site to discuss as sensible adults
FFS

steven thats the level they stoop to maybe a should not have took the bate but why should i stand by and watch them slag my faith and club the undertones are there for all to see your right lets move on from it its disgusting

Mick
Its not personal, at least I hope not.
They are hurting and as the evidence unfolds the tendency is to lash out.
You guys have been dueling for a while now usually with some good banter, please lets keep it above the waistline.
Espn tomorrow night
Not Alba hoho

On the league reconstruction debate. Charlie’s main gripe with 12-12-18 was that when – i’m sure he ment if, as he’s full of dignity – The Rangers win Division 3, they wouldn’t get promoted. Which is a lie, as they would get promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd. But anyway, Charlie’s now suggested 14-14-14 (Just like Jim Traynor suggested months ago, what a coincidence eh?). But in a 14-14-14, The Rangers would still be in the bottom tier. Not only that, but they would only be playing 3 new clubs next season, as opposed to 7 in a 12-12-18. “Ney! Dooan’t use ‘at burst football, use uz burst football asteead.”

There are other obvious faults in a 14-14-14. Such as there would only be 26 games a season. But it’s OK Charlie, the MSM won’t question you on it. I mean, the fact that they’re even giving an associate member’s idea such a platform, when, as everyone now knows, associate members don’t have a vote, should reassure you of this.

Isn’t it funny tho? The Rangers are moaning about injustice, when they have been allowed into the football league despite not being eligible. Surely Ally will be questioning who, what, when, where, why and how his team have been allowed to play in Division 3 then? No? Didn’t think so either.

Coy
tbf I posted jabbas links a couple of days ago and he postulated, from memory a 7- 7 split after 22 games[I COULD BE WRONG] the point is chico has just been informed of jabba’s prior position and has now fallen in line with der maestro. Chicboy had to be against ANY plan put forward by the SPL. It didn’t matter what the plan actually was in fact! Opposition gave chuckles a platform to spout a view that resonated with gers fans prejudices – There was no real opposition to any plan! Defiance is the key word. If they are for it then we must be agin it!
There is probably [and I hate to say this] more to be commended by a 14-14-14 set up as proposed by jabba. Fans seem to desire a larger top league; that would appear to be the overiding viewpoint.They are fed up playing the same teams week after week. The finances of this seem to be the problem, but surely what the fans want should mean more effort to solve this- it isn’ rocket science , is it?

I can’t see how a 7-7 split in a league will ever work. Since the infamous Germany-Austria World Cup game football has almost always gone for simultaneous kick-offs in final league matches so that no team enters such a match knowing exactly what it must do. (Europa league when the group stages was 5 teams is the only notable exception I can think of)

I assume that you actually meant a split after 26 matches when all had played each other both home and away with the 7s then playing home and away totalling 38 matches. The problem comes that the last 12 matches would be played over 14 rounds with each team having 2 byes

I can only think of Australian Rugby League (maybe historical) and American Football where teams get one or more bye rounds. In the former I think the team was awarded the points for a win, in the latter no points are awarded. If the latter were applied to the 7-7 split you could end up with a team in a relegation spot on goal difference having a bye for the final round while the team(s) above them know the margin they must not lose by to avoid relegation. At present going into the final round relegation is either already decided or teams within 3 points of the relegation places know they must draw at least or even win to avoid relegation..

Everyone would love to see a 16 team SPL. But realistically, the current state that Scottish Football’s in, that’s not a feasible option. Well not unless you want to start on a downward spiral, i.e. all clubs would lose money from there being 3 less home games. (For example, Dunded Utd have said they would lose £700k). There would also be less games that TV companies would want to show, resulting in a lesser TV deal. A lesser TV deal would mean less money for clubs. Clubs with less money equals players of lesser ability. And a league full of players of lesser ability would make Scottish Football less of an attraction for TV companies, which would mean an even lesser TV deal. Repeat ad infinitum.

Not to mention the fact that any chance of a Scottish club performing well in Europe would be made even tougher. Which would lower the co-efficient, making it even more difficult in future seasons. Again, repeat ad infinitum.

So ’12-12-18′ might not be ideal, but it’s the best option available. It won’t be forever tho, because it’s not the end game. It will be gone before 2020. What everyone needs to do, is look at the state Scottish Foobtall’s in, and think of ’12-12-18′ as the ‘half way house’ to a 16 team SPL.

In the current setup, the team that finishes 1st in SFL Division 1 (13th overall) receives £70k. Where as in the ’12-12-18′ setup, the team that finishes 5th in the ‘Promotion/Relegation League’ (13th overall) would receive £300k. Also, as opposed to currently nothing, in the ’12-12-18′ setup, the teams that finish 5th to 8th in the ‘Promotion/Relegation League’, would each receive a parachute payment of £200k.

If Scottish Football was to restructure straight to a 16 team SPL. Then every club in Scotland would receive LESS money than they do in the current setup.

But restructure to the ’12-12-18′ setup, and in about 5 seasons time, there will be at least another 6 to 8 clubs on a par with the majority of current SPL clubs. Scottish Football would then be in a better position to negotiate an acceptable TV deal for, what would be seen as a more competitive, 16 team SPL.

coybig
The new monies could be redirected in a new set up- whatever the set up! I do agree that as a step forward it is an improvement and that if it does come to pass then it is an interim step – we can but hope.

@Coy, Bud I don’t think the make up of the league really matters to the fans. It matters to the chairman , boards and money men in general… You can only play what’s put put in front of you.

On the point of playing the same teams week in week out, it’s how most leagues feature. For a small country we have way too many teams to hold a proper level of support, moreso in times of hardship where supporting a team is a very expensive luxury. Fans will become more selective, something I think we are seeing at Celtic this season with some European success.

I don’t have the answer to the numbers in leagues but I think we should have 2 leagues at most that we would consider professional in whatever capacity and the teams in both would see the lions share of any revenues thru tv or sponsorship, the leagues below would have an option for promotion, but we cannot have teams deemed as professional when they are supported by 500 fans on average. That is just not viable and will dilute the leagues sellability.

The costs for football matches (in the higher leagues) is way too high there should be a capped price £20 max, £5 for an under 16 that would help in future proofing a younger fan base.

There should be cheaper standing sections as in some of the better leagues in Europe, Germany for example. Bring back more noise and raw excitement to the game, I enjoyed most of my football at Celtic in the 80’s swaying in the rangers end.

There should be cheaper and better packages for families that may include snacks, refreshments etc.

There should be better facilities for selling food and beverages before the game, take it away from the local pubs and offer a better service to the customer without cramming them in like a lot of the pubs do. Have entertainment at these events also and have it properly policed so no-one gets wasted before the game, in a state of inebriation you don’t get in the ground.

The larger teams should be able to apply to have their colt teams in the lower division(s),I cannot see why this would not be successful. The argument that it stops another team joining that league is a non starter if celtic and rangers could have >5000 fans at these games. The colt teams would have at 75% of their squad under 20, promoting youth.

Lastly summer football is a must for this freezing country, we should work that into whatever league structure we have over a 5 yr period each year adjusting the start/stop dates for the league.. Benefits; games having a much better chance of being on, better level of football in better conditions, more fans willing to sit and watch some footie without their asses freezing to the seats, I strongly believe we would pick up more TV interest when other leagues are shut down also, we just need to navigate worldcups and Euro championships (if we ever get to one), but that is merely a question of logistics and a lot of countries do that now.

All sensible stuff Jim but when i watch young foreign kids and senior Euro teams play a different game to us i get depressed.
The technical ability isn’t there,if the foreign teams press us our poor control lets us down.
The get intae them mentality prevails and the cluggers and triers are more appreciated than the ball players.
You coach some young kids and i hope things do change and the age of the promising youngster who doesn’t progress and is ” lost” to the game,is over.
The financial rewards are enough for some of the up and coming players who don’t seem committed enough to go up to the next level.

You will not see better standards of football by rearranging the deck chairs , first must come summer football , which other sport , apart from husky racing picks the worst of the winter to play a sport in ? Secondly massive investment youth football hopefully from the government aswell, also schools playing football from primary one and proper coaching , could the sfa not employ retired players to tour schools ? Or we will be here in twenty years time having the same old tired debate.

@carson I recall you being an advocate of summer footie. The best teams in the world play in a good climates, says it all to me.. Boys football shuts down (on grass) 8-10 weeks a season, it’s shocking… Watching a young boy try to kick a cannonball on a frosty morning is soul destroying… Or a boy kicking a size 4 ball with 6 inches of wet grass wrapped round it cos the councils cut occasionally (usually after they line the parks) and dont rake the cuttings… Marvellous eh!!!

Celtic have affiliated with some secondary schools and teaching footie with classes I think that’s a great idea. It costs £250k a year in transport but I think it is forward thinking…

And this year’s Gold Globe for succulent Lamb goes to –
TalkSport for “Exclusive – Conference chairman Brian Lee refuses to close the door on Rangers.” but he says FIFA would block it – oh! the type was too big to get that bit into the headline.

Utter garbage – 8 of 14 conference clubs polled said “YES” to an unspecified question – we were too lazy to ask the other 10 – or the 44 clubs in Conference North and Conference South who might have an opinion.

Makes more sense – why wouldn’t they want to talk about it – but that’s a lot different from the twist TalkSport put on it. It will be interesting to see what they report back – probably “wait and see” what others do before getting to vexed about it eg TRFC, FIFA, UEFA, SFA

Talksport are the new succulent lamb since CG took over, its embarrassing that they are allowed to continue in the fashion they do just now, but CG needs the oxygen and they are the ones currently providing it.

Violet January 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm: Isn’t this sort of debate better than spewing vomit over RFC and their followers

Hold on a minute Violet – where have I “spewed vomit” over NewRFC and its followers (it’s a single entity)? Have I been critical, yes. Have I taken the p!ss a bit, sure. Am I unhappy that NewGers are proclaiming themselves “Scotland’s only debt free club” as if its been achieved by some great financial management rather than simply walking away from their debts, absolutely. But “spewed vomit”, I certainly don’t think I have done that.

Anyway back to the debate – you say institutional investors “weren’t sold anything”? Really? Newspaper reports as far back as October 2012 refute that: “Green, speaking in London, where he and Ally McCoist were to meet potential institutional investors…”I have spoken to some fund managers. We also had some fund managers up to the game… they have already started to look at it as potential investment for their clients.”

So clearly they had a conversation where Green and his team were trying to get the people they were meeting (insti investors) to buy (into their IPO) – that is pre-tty much my definition of selling. What did they sell? Well let’s look at the prospectus:

“Since its formation in 1872, the Club has become one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’s loyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one of the highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK…the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades.”

They repeated this historical honours list under the subsection“3. History”
“The Club, founded in 1872 and now in its 140th year (sic), has been a dominant force in Scottish football since the professional game began…. Until the 2012/13 …the Club has exclusively been a member of the top level of the Scottish football pyramid. Since inception, the Club’s honours include a [yada yadah…]… Club has participated in European competition on numerous occasions… several successful tournaments… leading European clubs have been beaten… notably participated in the Champions League 10 times since its inception… most consistent representative of Scottish football….played at Ibrox Stadium since 1899. The stadium has been upgraded several times with the last major upgrade being in the 1990s.”

My God, they even worked in dead monarchs who have visited in the past: “Over the years Ibrox has played host to numerous non-football related events and welcomed ruling monarchs, including George V, George VI and the present Queen Elizabeth II.”

If that’s not selling the NewCo on the history of OldCo I don’t know what is.

Now you say these II’s should have looked past all this fluff and see “the fundamentals”. THAT’S EXACTLY MY POINT. The fundamentals wouldn’t value the company at 90p a share – the property that they have simply can’t be sold for the valuation they have offered (that’s been done to death on here, RTC, even TSFM) so I take issue with your assumption of break-up value. I would put that at nearer 30p than 75p-90p.

OK they have an excellent squad for the lower leagues but one which will need investment to compete in the SPL – which cannot take place for a few years anyway, so once again I take issue that “they look good in the short term” based on the gamble (as you term it) of getting to the SPL as I would say 3 years is certainly medium term in the football world – after all as Lambert said “with Celtic (and one might infer Rangers) “you are one bad result away from a crisis”.

As you say the big question is will the management and board stick to their 30% salary cap and prudent financial management (perhaps utilising a metal receptacle previously used for storing baked goods) when they are chasing trophies and success in Europe? History says no.

You are absolutely right to say there is a lot of “noise” around these shares – I agree – and in truth different investors see value in different things. I am just looking to cut through the noise and try and find some clarity or even, God forbid, some “facts”!
x’bnkViolet January 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm: Isn’t this sort of debate better than spewing vomit over RFC and their followers

Hold on a minute Violet – where have I “spewed vomit” over NewRFC and its followers (it’s a single entity)? Have I been critical, yes. Have I taken the p!ss a bit, sure. Am I unhappy that NewGers are proclaiming themselves “Scotland’s only debt free club” as if its been achieved by some great financial management rather than simply walking away from their debts, absolutely. But “spewed vomit”, I certainly don’t think I have done that.

Anyway back to the debate – you say institutional investors “weren’t sold anything”? Really? Newspaper reports as far back as October 2012 refute that: “Green, speaking in London, where he and Ally McCoist were to meet potential institutional investors…”I have spoken to some fund managers. We also had some fund managers up to the game… they have already started to look at it as potential investment for their clients.”

So clearly they had a conversation where Green and his team were trying to get the people they were meeting (insti investors) to buy (into their IPO) – that is pre-tty much my definition of selling. What did they sell? Well let’s look at the prospectus:

“Since its formation in 1872, the Club has become one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’s loyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one of the highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK…the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades.”

They repeated this historical honours list under the subsection“3. History”
“The Club, founded in 1872 and now in its 140th year (sic), has been a dominant force in Scottish football since the professional game began…. Until the 2012/13 …the Club has exclusively been a member of the top level of the Scottish football pyramid. Since inception, the Club’s honours include a [yada yadah…]… Club has participated in European competition on numerous occasions… several successful tournaments… leading European clubs have been beaten… notably participated in the Champions League 10 times since its inception… most consistent representative of Scottish football….played at Ibrox Stadium since 1899. The stadium has been upgraded several times with the last major upgrade being in the 1990s.”

My God, they even worked in dead monarchs who have visited in the past: “Over the years Ibrox has played host to numerous non-football related events and welcomed ruling monarchs, including George V, George VI and the present Queen Elizabeth II.”

If that’s not selling the NewCo on the history of OldCo I don’t know what is.

Now you say these II’s should have looked past all this fluff and see “the fundamentals”. THAT’S EXACTLY MY POINT. The fundamentals wouldn’t value the company at 90p a share – the property that they have simply can’t be sold for the valuation they have offered (that’s been done to death on here, RTC, even TSFM) so I take issue with your assumption of break-up value. I would put that at nearer 30p than 75p-90p.

OK they have an excellent squad for the lower leagues but one which will need investment to compete in the SPL – which cannot take place for a few years anyway, so once again I take issue that “they look good in the short term” based on the gamble (as you term it) of getting to the SPL as I would say 3 years is certainly medium term in the football world – after all as Lambert said “with Celtic (and one might infer Rangers) “you are one bad result away from a crisis”.

As you say the big question is will the management and board stick to their 30% salary cap and prudent financial management (perhaps utilising a metal receptacle previously used for storing baked goods) when they are chasing trophies and success in Europe? History says no.

You are absolutely right to say there is a lot of “noise” around these shares – I agree – and in truth different investors see value in different things. I am just looking to cut through the noise and try and find some clarity or even, God forbid, some “facts”!

Jocky,you bhoys are gonna have to clean up your act.All this vomiting and urinating is getting out of hand.With the verbal diarrehea coming out of Raygun and Donkey and wee Lenny picking his beak and flicking it about this place is becoming a health hazard.

looks as if some posts have “gone missing” or there are gremlins at work.
HMV i see, look like following Jessops as the next victim of online shopping.I wonder what the high st will look like in years to come?,,mile after mile of Poundlands and bookies.
Still, Chico gave wee Craigie his pound back and another one for him to invest in his business portfolio so a pound can get you a real bargain.
Chico has kept the receipt to show BDO and the goods were on sale to the general public for a while.
Some clown tried to frighten folk off by suggesting that by buying the club you were buying a tax liability,but some learned chaps who make a career out of such things and don’t wear coloured blinkers set him straight.
Anyone any idea when Captain Nimmo and rotund Rod are gonna get down and boogie?

I think the possibility of Rangers moving to the English Conference is fascinating. Looking at the history it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see what’s coming.

Btw I should make it clear that if Rangers wish to leave Scotland then I wish them Bon Voyage and I hope the SFA doesn’t stand in their way if the fans agree. I would suggest that Rangers fans, in the shape of season ticket holders, should be given a vote – conducted independently – asking their opinion.

If there is say 25% clear majority in favour of moving then the SFA should let Rangers go subject to Uefa approval of course. But really I see that stage as more a battle between Euefa and the FA if they are also happy with the move.

Conference National is the fifth and lowest of the five nationwide English football divisions in England, below the Premier League and the three Football League Divisions. It is also the top tier of the National League System of non-League football with Conference North and Conference South forming the English sixth tier.

I have no idea where Rangers would start other than assuming at best it would be in Conference North or South where most of the Conference semi-professional teams are. But that could create problems with the three feeder leagues so Rangers might have to start in a feeder league

There are 68 club in the three Conference Divisions (excluding feeder clubs) and Conference chairman Brian Lees has said 18 of his member clubs expressed tentative support for a Rangers entry. Talksport polled 14 of the 24 clubs in Conference National and found 8 in favour; 3 against; and 3 maybe.

But back to crystal balls – Already the enemy ‘roadblocks’ on the Long March have been identified on the Darkside and I can only wonder how long it will take to arrange the boycott of those not wanting to make new friends of Rangers.

But the great thing is that issues concerning the Blue Pound would have moved furth of Scotland and we can watch the same old history of threats and aggression roll-on in another land. I think I can already hear a distant echo of Ally demanding the names 🙂

Think of all the happy hours ahead pouring over unfamiliar league rule books and having the secrets of the Vatican and it workings unmasked in the dark & distant recesses of lower division English football.

I think the possibility of Rangers moving to the English Conference is fascinating. Looking at the history it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see what’s coming.

Btw I should make it clear that if Rangers wish to leave Scotland then I wish them Bon Voyage and I hope the SFA doesn’t stand in their way if the fans agree. I would suggest that Rangers fans, in the shape of season ticket holders, should be given a vote – conducted independently – asking their opinion.

If there is say 25% clear majority in favour of moving then the SFA should let Rangers go subject to Uefa approval of course. But really I see that stage as more a battle between Euefa and the FA if they are also happy with the move.

Conference National is the fifth and lowest of the five nationwide English football divisions in England, below the Premier League and the three Football League Divisions. It is also the top tier of the National League System of non-League football with Conference North and Conference South forming the English sixth tier.

I have no idea where Rangers would start other than assuming at best it would be in Conference North or South where most of the Conference semi-professional teams are. But that could create problems with the three feeder leagues so Rangers might have to start in a feeder league

There are 68 club in the three Conference Divisions (excluding feeder clubs) and Conference chairman Brian Lees has said 18 of his member clubs expressed tentative support for a Rangers entry. Talksport polled 14 of the 24 clubs in Conference National and found 8 in favour; 3 against; and 3 maybe.

But back to crystal balls – Already the enemy ‘roadblocks’ on the Long March have been identified on the Darkside and I can only wonder how long it will take to arrange the boycott of those not wanting to make new friends of Rangers.

But the great thing is that issues concerning the Blue Pound would have moved furth of Scotland and we can watch the same old history of threats and aggression roll-on in another land. I think I can already hear a distant echo of Ally demanding the names 🙂

Think of all the happy hours ahead pouring over unfamiliar league rule books and having the secrets of the Vatican and it workings unmasked in the dark & distant recesses of lower division English football.